Questions FEB 10

Beyond Bioethics Foreword, Introduction, 1; Premonition 7

1. Concern for individual autonomy and personal sovereignty can obscure what other issue?

2. Why should we expand our notion of bioethics to biopolitics?

3. What popular sentiment on human reproductive cloning did Planned Parenthood not adopt, "fortunately"?

4. As the field of Bioethics evolved, to what approach did it stake a claim?

5. Name two of the distinctive concerns of the "new biopolitics" marking its difference from mainstream bioethics.

6. What "strand in the identification of the undeserving poor" is enjoying a revival?

7. Who was the Social Darwinists' leading spokesperson, and what did conservatives oppose in his name?

8. To whom did German eugenicists say they owed a debt?

9. Who said "low intelligence is a stronger precursor of poverty than low socioeconomic background"?

10. What assumption, according to a cited philosopher, encourages people to treat differences as pathologies?

Premonition

1. What's CEPI, who ran it, and who funded it?

2. What tacit rule did the Trump White House inherit from the Reagan administration?

3. What large gathering did the Chinese government allow in January 2020, after what WHO announcement?

4. Redneck epidemiology is academically ____.

5. What was shocking about the rate of viral reproduction of the novel coronavirus, compared to 1918?

6. What was Carter's favorite metaphor to convey people's inability to conceive exponential growth?

7. What could James Lawler not quite believe about the repatriation of Americans from Wuhan?

8. What was Carter's idea for a fishing expedition?

9. Who did Duane Caneva tell the Wolverines about on Feb 6, 2020?

Discussion Questions:

• Why is disproportionately white and middle-class patronage of 23andMe a problem?

• Is it inherently and unexceptionally wrong to prescribe dosages based on the patient's race and ethnicity?

• Should the role of medical professionals in the Nuremberg (etc.) atrocities have surprised us?
• Can any form of public/government-sponsored eugenic screening or counseling ever be seriously and cautiously entertained in a free society? Can "university presidents, MDs, judges, scholars" et al ever again advocate respectably for any form of eugenics? (xxi)
• What do you imagine would be the negative consequences, should human reproductive cloning ever be left to "individual choice"?
• How would you respond to any of the "thorny ethical questions" arising from germline engineering, CRISPR, etc.? (3)
• Is our social obligation to ameliorate poverty altered in any way by considerations of poverty's source, particularly in the case of the children of poverty? 
• Is the promise of epigenetics to account for the so-called achievement gap, and in support of various interventions in the lives of poor children, scientifically sound? Is there a danger that its misuse will actually set back the cause of effective social reform?

Opioid overdose: A bioethicist explains why restricting supply may not be the right solution

 

"Year after year, America’s drug overdose crisis is worsening.

In the 12-month period ending in June 2021, the most recent period for which there is reliable data, more than 101,000 people died from drug overdose in the U.S., – an increase of more than 20% from the previous year.

2021 was also an important year for analysis of the overdose crisis, with numerous books and articles shedding light on both the causes and potential solutions to the crisis.

Not all analysis is in agreement, however. As a bioethicist who has spent much of the past several years researching the ethical and policy issues related to drug use, I’ve become particularly interested in an evolving tension between commentators on the drug crisis.

While many blame today’s crisis on an increase in drug supply over the past 25 years, others suggest that increasing drug supply can actually be a solution. So who is right? And what would ethical policy around drug supply look like?"

Article continues 

German Researchers to Breed Pigs for Human Heart Transplants This Year

 German scientists plan to clone and then breed this year genetically modified pigs to serve as heart donors for humans, based on a simpler version of a U.S.-engineered animal used last month in the world’s first pig-to-human transplant.Eckhard Wolf, a scientist at Ludwig-Maximilians University (LMU) in Munich, said his team aimed to have the new species, modified from the Auckland Island breed, ready for transplant trials by 2025. 

 This reminded me of a discussion we were having in class the other day about how ethical it would be since pigs are already being bred for food purposes, would it be ethical or unethical for pigs to be bred for the sake of humans' heart transplants. For me, it raises the question of where has humanity reached the point where we think all the other animals exist to serve humans? 

Article continued at https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/german-researchers-breed-pigs-human-heart-transplants-this-year-2022-02-03/

Midterm report presentations

Your goal in the presentation is to research your topic, tell us something important about it that we didn't read in our assigned texts, and lead a brief discussion. Prior to your reporting date, post a brief summary (just a sentence or two), indicate your research sources, and pose a couple of questions for discussion. You can create a powerpoint if you wish, or show a brief video clip, or read from notes or a prepared script, or just talk to us if you're comfortable extemporizing. Prepare to speak for ten minutes, then lead class discussion. If you have a topic preference, indicate that in a comment below. It should relate in some way to the general theme of public health, pandemic, etc. We'll identify or assign topics FEB 8, then begin presentations FEB 15.

Volunteer to go first?

FEB 15-

1. Patricia, "Pandemic Thought: from Bubonic to Influenza to Coronavirus"

2. Curtis,  Should EBT recipients be forced to spend their money on healthy food?

FEB 17-

1. Mea, Balancing quality and efficiency in healthcare

2. Maria, "Genetic Testing and Designer Babies" Antibiotic resistance

FEB 22-

1. Claire, The ethics of vaccine mandates

2. Kirolos, The ethics of eugenics and reproductive technologies

FEB 24-

1. Julianna, “Ethical Care of Underserved Patients"

2. Pierce, HIV pandemic

MAR 1-

1. Gary, "The Curious Case of the Firing of Dr. Michelle Fiscus"

2. Matthew, Suburban sprawl

MAR 3-

1. Pranithi, The need for a feminist approach in Bioethics

2.

More to follow after Spring Break... Austin, Transhumanism

Codger power

 Making the most of our "sunset" years is not just shuffleboard anymore.

"This particular dust-up won’t be a decisive battle in the struggle for a better America and a better planet; in fact, there may not be any decisive battles, just a long series of skirmishes"-Meliorism now, and tomorrow, and tomorrow... https://t.co/6W2RTXPPbP

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) February 8, 2022

For those who don't know Neil... 

 

Workplace Benefits: Fertility Services

 Due to the unfortunate labor market, employers are adding more and more to benefits packages in order to gain employees. Many organizations are adding methods such as in-vitro fertilization and egg freezing, just to name a few. 

Around one in eight couples struggle with infertility issues in the United States alone. These equates to 6.7 million people a year. Natural fertility rates are only 20% per month for healthy 30-year-old women, meaning that for every 100 women actively trying to get pregnant in a month, only 20 are actually successful. 

I thought this was an interesting read and it made me consider how health benefits can change from time to time. What are some health benefits you could expect emerging in the future? 

Who Are We Caring for in the I.C.U.?

A doctor reckons with what's owed to a patient's family members.

We gathered as a medical team in front of my patient's room early one Saturday. She was one of the sickest patients in the intensive care unit. Her lungs were destroyed by cancer and a rare reaction to her chemotherapy, and her condition worsened each day, despite aggressive interventions. It was clear that there was nothing more that we could do. Except to keep her alive until Monday.

Struggling to come to terms with this reality, her family had begged us to continue our interventions through the weekend. So we would keep her intubated, deeply sedated and, we hoped, pain-free, performing the rituals of intensive care until the family was ready to say goodbye.

There is a largely unacknowledged moment in critical care when doctors and nurses shift from caring for the patients in front of us to caring for their loved ones. Often these two aims are not inconsistent: Even when family members like these are not ready to stop life-prolonging interventions or ask for a treatment that is unlikely to work, they are speaking on behalf of the patient. But increasingly I wonder if it is possible to go too far to accommodate family. When a patient is at the end of life, what is our responsibility to those who will be left behind? (continues)

 Vastly unequal US has world’s highest Covid death toll - it’s no coincidence

As the US passes 900,000 Covid deaths, much of the blame has fallen on individuals despite vast income inequality and vaccine accessibility issues

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/06/us-covid-death-rate-vaccines

Melody Schreiber

Sun 6 Feb 2022 02.00 EST

The US has suffered 900,000 deaths from Covid-19, the highest figure of any nation. The death toll would be equivalent to the 15th most populous city in the country, more than San Francisco, Washington DC or Boston – a city of ghosts with its population swelling each day.

It’s not just the total numbers. America also has the highest death rate of any wealthy country, with half of the deaths occurring after vaccines became available.

The US has never responded to the Covid pandemic in a sustained, proactive way as a unified nation. Instead, much of the responsibility – and blame – has fallen on individuals. In a country with vast income inequality, poor health and sharp political divides, the results have been grim.

(Continues, Use like above)

Quizlet Update

 Hey guy! 

I saw that you guys are using the Quizlet, yayy! 

Don't be afraid to check me if I get one wrong, I want it to be as accurate as possible. 

See you on Tuesday! 

-Patricia 

What We Can Learn From How the 1918 Pandemic Ended

…Signs of weariness — or misguided hope — are everywhere. Although more than 70 percent of the adult population is fully vaccinated, progress has stagnated, and as of Jan. 27, only 44 percent had received boosters, which provide vital protection against severe illness. Although most of us, especially parents, want schools to stay open, parents have gotten only about 20 percent of children ages 5 to 11 fully vaccinated. As in 1920, people are tired of taking precautions.

This is ceding control to the virus. The result has been that even though Omicron appears to be less virulent, the seven-day average for daily Covid-19 deaths in the United States has now surpassed the Delta peak in late September.

Worse, the virus may not be finished with us. Although there's a reasonable likelihood that future variants will be less dangerous, mutations are random. The only thing certain is that future variants, if they are to be successful, will elude immune protection. They could become more dangerous...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/opinion/covid-pandemic-end.html?referringSource=articleShare

Questions FEB 8

 Justice (Basics 6); Premonition 6

We wrap up our reading and discussion of Bioethics: The Basics with ch.6 on justice. The vaccination/immunization issue is raised here. Also see Eula Biss's On Immunity, below.*

But first, on "enhancement": awhile back I saw a chilling fictional representation of how future mental/cognitive enhancements might lead to dystopia. It was episode three of the British series "Black Mirror," in which everyone is equipped with an implant called a "grain" - it's kind of a subcutaneous Google Glass, with instant access to one's entire archival memory (and with f/forward and rewind). The late David Carr on Black Mirror, MicroSoft's HoloLens, and our dwindling experience of "actual unencumbered reality"...

And if that's not chilling enough, check out "The World of Tomorrow"...

1. What are the two major spheres of justice discussed by Campbell? 

2. (T/F) Vaccination/immunization and restricted mobility are two of the measures used by preventive medicine to counter the spread of disease. 

3. Another name for the micro-allocation of health care, concerned with prioritizing access to given treatments, is what? (HINT: This was hotly debated and widely misrepresented ("death panels" etc.) in the early months of the Obama administration.)   

4. What "perverse incentive" to health care practitioners and institutions do reimbursement systems foster, as illustrated by excessive use of MRIs?

5. What is the inverse care law?   

6. What is meant by the term "heartsink patients"?

7. How are Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) supposed to address and solve the problem of who should receive (for instance) a transplant?   

8. Who propounded a theory of justice that invokes a "veil of ignorance," and what are its two fundamental principles?   

  9. Under what accounts of health might we describe a sick or dying person as healthy?

10. Name two of the "capabilities" Martha Nussbaum proposes as necessary to ensure respect for human dignity?

==

Premonition

1. What grant to Joe DeRisi led to his "Red Phone"?

2. The new coronavirus Joe's lab identified in 2003 caused what syndrome?

3. Joe went "down the rabbit hole" to talk to who?

4. Joe said analyzing genetic sequences with the Virochip was like trying to find what?

5. What is the dark matter of genomic sequencing?

6. How does Joe think science is misunderstood?

7. How was the DeRisi lab like Willy Wonka?

8. What's an example of "screwed up incentives" inside the medical-industrial complex?

9. What is the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub's "preposterous goal"?




DQ:
1. Do you agree that health care providers are ethically obliged to promote a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the welfare of society as a whole, and a fair distribution of benefits and burdens in society? Would you say that ethos is widely shared among physicians?

2. Reflecting on the present measles outbreak and the ebola quarantines of last summer, how would you rate the current strength and effectiveness of vaccination and restricted mobility as tools of preventive medicine? How might they be improved? Do you agree that most anti-vaccers lack a degree of social conscience?

3. Are you aware of examples of unjust "queue jumping"? 150 (Does the name Mickey Mantle ring a bell?) 

4. Are there better alternative payment systems than reimbursement? Is it possible to reign in excessive tests and costs while retaining a reimbursement system? 

5. How would you resolve the Lifeboat Scenario? 153f.

6. Do you agree that justice requires us to remove the social disadvantages caused by ill health and disability, and support a universal right to those health care interventions that will allow everyone to pursue their "normal opportunity range"? Would you be more or less likely to agree, if you found yourself behind the "veil"? 159

7. Are there any "attainable human capabilities" on Martha Nussbaum's normative list you'd not include on yours? 163

8. Elaborate on how bioethics overlaps with environmental ethics. 165

==
Eula Biss, On Immunity: An Innoculation


==

Bioethics articles... transhumanism articles... Dying while black: Perpetual gaps exist in health care for African-Americans...

==
Dr. Victor Sidel, Public Health Champion, Is Dead at 86
Dr. Victor Sidel, a leading public health specialist whose concerns ranged from alleviating the effects of poverty in the Bronx, where he worked for many years, to raising alarms about the potential impact of nuclear war, died on Jan. 30 in Greenwood Village, Colo. He was 86.His son Mark confirmed the death.

As a founding member of Physicians for Social Responsibility and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985, Dr. Sidel voiced his apprehensions about nuclear proliferation as a public health issue for more than 50 years. He served as president of the former organization and co-president of the latter.

In a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1962, Dr. Sidel, Dr. H. Jack Geiger and Dr. Bernard Lown painted a grim picture of fatalities and injuries in the Boston area from a nuclear attack and posed ethical questions for surviving doctors.

“Does the physician seek shelter?” they asked, adding, “If the physician finds himself in an area high in radiation, does he leave the injured to secure his own safety?”

And in speeches beginning in the mid-1980s, Dr. Sidel (pronounced sy-DELL) used a metronome to stress what he described as the imbalance between worldwide spending on arms and health care. With the metronome set at one beat a second, Dr. Sidel explained that with every beat, a child died or was permanently disabled by a preventable illness, while $25,000 was spent on weaponry... (continues)
==

THE DEATH OF THE DOCTOR’S DOG

In contrast to veterinary practice, the medical profession has long forbidden the notion of speeding death. By BARRON H. LERNER, M.D

==

	Mother Jones (@MotherJones)
2/8/16, 6:45 AM We are this close to "designer babies" mojo.ly/1W5QtTe pic.twitter.com/KTO0VDpNHl




	New Republic (@NewRepublic)
2/8/16, 7:00 AM What’s wrong with Craig Venter? bit.ly/1UWRU65 pic.twitter.com/F3b8scr06N


The USDA abruptly removes animal welfare information from its website
http://wapo.st/2kBZkTy

Measuring the wonders of an empathetic ear in the doctor’s office
http://wapo.st/2k4JHTO

Netherlands Fertility Doctor Used Own Sperm to Father 21 Children

A gynecologist in the Netherlands conceived 21 children and potentially dozens more using his own sperm after prospective parents turned to him for fertility treatment, an investigation has discovered. Jos Beek worked at Elisabeth hospital in Leiderdorp, now part of Alrijne hospital, between 1973 and 1998. He died in 2019. The couples being treated by Beek had expected to be the beneficiaries of samples from anonymous sperm donors. Alrijne hospital said it did not believe Beek had told anyone the truth.


Article continued at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/02/netherlands-fertility-doctor-jos-beek-father-21-children

Brain Organoids?

An abstract posted by Kyoto University explores the progressions being made in artificial organ transplant. 

The discussion starts by investigating the ethics of creating an artificial brain and transplanting it into animals to test success of the "organoid" in order to one day potentially place it in humans that are in need of a healthy brain. Is this kind of animal testing ethical? 

The abstract explains how consciousness is an issue here in that it cannot truly be measured or defined:

"Brain organoids have led to deep questions about consciousness. With some people imagining a future where our brains are uploaded and kept on the cloud well after our bodies die, organoids bring an opportunity to test consciousness and morality in artificial environments."

The statement regarding that brains could one day be uploaded and kept on the cloud reminded me of the scene from Harry Potter when Harry sticks his head into the pit of water (I am not sure what the actual name of the pit is) and he is able to see Professor Snape's memories. Will people one day be able to relive and experience the memories of past loved ones, friends, or in Harry's case, enemies? What are your thoughts on this? And is this ethical? 

How does Biomedicine Transform Human Reproduction?

According to Henry Greely, genetic testing has played a role in pregnancy for over 50 years.

The article continues with the following: 

"Today, bad news from prenatal testing leaves would-be parents with two options: terminate the pregnancy or prepare for the birth of an ill or at-risk child. For over 30 years, parents have been able to avoid this dilemma by turning to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This procedure starts with in vitro fertilization (IVF), but then tests embryos before they are transferred into the uterus. For many people, choosing not to transfer an embryo destined to have a genetic disease raises less concern than aborting an already implanted embryo or growing fetus."

I am curious to know everyone's thoughts on this. I know this topic is one that some would not poke with a 15 foot pole; however, I am curious. Is genetic testing on the unborn ethical? And if yes, how far is too far? 

After reading this article, I was reminded of the book Brave New World (1932). The book is set in year 2540 and describes a world in which embryos are given differing intelligence levels based on chemical treatment. While this is not happening today, I feel that with the speed that biomedical technology is advancing, this could be closer than year 2540. Thoughts? 

I understand that this is sort of an extreme when it comes to genetic testing and that this is not the current state of the world. I also understand that genetic testing does have benefits. However, it does make me think, if the technology is available one day, what will happen? 

Covid Fatigue? 70% of Americans Say ‘We Just Need to Get on With Our Lives,’ According to New Poll

 As the United States enters year three of the Covid-19 pandemic, a large share of Americans are ready to “get on” with their lives.

Seventy percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “It’s time we accept that Covid is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives,” when asked in a Monmouth University poll.

The survey shows that 78% of people who reported having had Covid believe it’s time to move on. Not surprisingly, responses indicate a clear partisan divide with 89% of Republicans agreeing with the statement, versus just 47% of Democrats. Among independents, 71% said it’s time to move on.

continues

How do you feel about lockdowns being a thing of the past? The CDC admitted cloth masks are ineffective, how does this influence Americans' thoughts on controlling covid in the past and future?

"A thousand lifetimes"

 Happy Groundhog Day! It's not so "cold out there,"* here--47 in middle Tennessee (Alexa says it's 30 in Punxsutawney), but it's wet and fecund. Spring is in the air. Respect must be paid. (U@d)

On this day in 1887, a groundhog named Phil first emerged from his burrow at Gobbler’s Knob — a small hill in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania — and the tradition of Groundhog’s Day was born. According to legend, if a groundhog sees his shadow today there will be six more weeks of winter. In Phil’s case, whether or not he will see his shadow is actually decided several days in advance by his top-hat-and-tuxedo-donning handlers, the members of the Groundhog Club’s Inner Circle. Despite their trade secret methods for prediction, Phil’s accuracy rate as of last year was only 39 percent. WA

 

Phil: "Well maybe the real God uses tricks, you know? Maybe he's not omnipotent. He's just been around so long he knows everything."

Rita: "Sometimes I wish I had a thousand lifetimes. I don't know, Phil. Maybe it's not a curse. Just depends on how you look at it."

* Phil: "OK, campers, rise and shine, and don't forget your booties cause it's cold out there. It's cold out there every day."

Questions FEB 3

Research (Basics 5); Premonition 5

Today in Bioethics we'll talk "research." Things like clinical trials and research involving animals and their rights, and genetics, and epidemiology. We'll look at the funding gap between what we need to cure and where our research dollars are actually going, and at the moral imperative of genuine and informed consent. We'll look at disturbing instances of fraudulent and dishonest research. And we'll consider Peter Singer's claims about "speciesism."

The future of research is a daunting source of apprehension and speculation. Michael Sandel and Bill McKibben have aired serious concerns about genetic and other "enhancement" research as potentially catastrophic for our capacity to achieve or even recognize "meaningful" lives. Enhanced may not mean improved.

1. Name one of the basic requirements agreed upon by all codes devised to protect individuals from malicious research.

2. What decree states that consent must be gained in all experimentation with human beings?

3. Name one of four areas of research discussed in the book.

4. Which famous contemporary ethicist is a sharp critic of speciesism?

5. Name one of four R's used in international legislation pertaining to animal rights in research?

6. Dilemmas in epidemiological research illiustrate what general point?

7. What did Hwang Woo-suk do?

8. What is the term for altering the numbers in a calculation to make the hypothesis more convincing, with no justification form the research findings for such members?

9. What categories of human enhancement does Campbell enumerate, and what does he identify as its "extreme end"?

10. What is the "10/90 Gap"?

Premonition

1. Watching "smart" people leave the White House, what did Carter learn about governmental inefficiency?

2. What happened when President Obama visited Mexico, prompting his meeting with Carter?

3. Why did Richard keep a detailed journal in the White House?

4. What was this book's eponymous "premonition"?

5. What Presidential decision "worked out" but was nonetheless wrong, in Richard's view?

6. What strange childhood experience altered Carter's thinking about pandemic preparednes?

7. Despite her academic adviser's suggestion that she drop science, Charity Dean fell in love with microbiology and learned what?

8. The U.S really doesn't have what, according to Charity?

DQ:

• Can there really ever be "fully informed" voluntary consent, given the many unknown variables and unpredicted consequences involved in most research?
• Discuss: "Trials of pharmaceuticals may be driven as much by commercial considerations as by the likelihood of real therapeutic gain." 122
• What concerns do you have about the use of animals in medical research? Is speciesism one of them? 10 medical breakthroughs due to animal testing... PETA... Touring an animal research facility
• What limits, if any, would you like to see imposed on genetic research and the uses to which it may be put?
• Were ethical improprieties committed in the case of Henrietta Lacks, whose cells (HELA cells) were harvested without her consent? (Rebecca Skloot... BBC...CBS...)
• If "dreams of perfect health by the better-off will determine the research agenda" in the future, resulting in soaring health care costs and greater health "enhancement" opportunities for the wealthy, what should be done to insure adequate attention to "the health problems of most of the world's population"? 129
• Should we be worried about a "Prozac revolution" and a "brave new world" of somatically-induced apathetic bliss? 130
• Would you give special priority to any of Campbell's five enhancement categories (130)? Is "Transcendence"-style enhancement beyond the realm of reasonable concern (given the considerable monied interest of people like Larry Page)? 
• Comment: "Why would we want such a 'posthuman' future? Are our lives better if we become physically stronger or more agile, or have an increased intelligence, or live for centuries?" 131
• Is the outsourcing of clinical drug trials to developing countries ethically defensible? 132
• How would you propose making research priorities "aligned to the needs of the majority"? 133
• Is it likely that biobanks and other communitarian initiatives will in the future "prioritize health research according to need rather than profit," particularly in the U.S.? Would you support such a reprioritizing? How?
• Have you seen Sicko? Care to share a review? Or of Michael Moore's latest doc'y?

5 musicians boycotting Spotify over Joe Rogan controversy

Article by Ivana Saric

Article link: https://www.axios.com/spotify-boycott-list-joe-rogan-neil-young-4c83f90a-0ce9-49b9-8abb-e8d040ac85c8.html



A growing number of musicians have recently announced they are removing their music from

Spotify over COVID-19 misinformation on Joe Rogan's podcast.



Driving the news: They join Neil Young, who last week became the first high-profile artist to

boycott Spotify because of content moderation issues.

The artists boycotting Spotify include:




1. Neil Young

-“I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines –

potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,"

Young wrote in a letter last week asking for Spotify to remove his music.


At the time, a Spotify spokesperson said in a statement that the platform regrets Young's decision, but it hopes "to welcome him back soon."

2. Joni Mitchell


Joni Mitchell last Friday said that she would also remove her music from Spotify "in solidarity with Neil Young and the global scientific and medical communities on this issue."

3. Nils Lofgren


Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band guitarist Nils Lofgren announced in a letter on Young's website Saturday that he was also joining the boycott over vaccine misinformation.


Lofgren said he stood with health care professionals, scientists and others in calling out Spotify for promoting vaccine misinformation.


"When these heroic women and men, who’ve spent their lives healing and saving ours, cry out for help you don’t turn your back on them for money and power. You listen and stand with them," he wrote.

4. India Arie


Singer India Arie announced on Instagram Monday that she too is having her music and podcast removed from the platform, citing concerns about Rogan's past comments about race as well as COVID-19.


“Neil Young opened a door that I must walk through,” she wrote.


"I believe in freedom of speech. However, I find Joe Rogan problematic for reasons other than his Covid interviews. For me, it’s also his language around race."

5. Graham Nash


Singer-songwriter Graham Nash announced via instagram on Tuesday that "having heard the Covid disinformation spread by Joe Rogan on Spotify, I completely agree with and support my friend, Neil Young."


"I am requesting that my solo recordings be removed from the service," he added in a statement, per Variety.

The big picture: Responding to the controversy on Sunday, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek doubled down on the platform's commitment to "creator expression" and vowed to be more transparent about its rules, Axios' Sara Fischer writes.


Spotify did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment on Tuesday.

In a video posted to Instagram Sunday night, Rogan denied that he promoted misinformation and said he would "try harder to get people with differing opinions on" his show and "do my best to make sure I’ve researched these topics."

For anti-natalists

	Oliver Burkeman ⁦‪@oliverburkeman‬⁩ Ed Steed pic.twitter.com/Y6aQKLpZUP   2/1/22, 6:05 AM

Reality+

Reality+ by David Chalmers book review

In 1912, Bertrand Russell published what he called his "shilling shocker": brief, lucid, affordable, The Problems of Philosophy remains a go-to introduction to the discipline, routinely recommended to the curious. Allowing for inflation – it costs more than a shilling, but it's longer and more shocking – David Chalmers's new book, Reality+, could play a similar role. Like Russell, Chalmers is an influential philosopher, known for ambitious, technically proficient work. Like Russell, he writes with plausible fluency, drawing the reader effortlessly with him. And like Russell, he enjoys a good surprise. "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating", Russell wrote, "and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it." That would be a decent motto for this book.

Chalmers is most famous for naming, and formulating, the "hard problem" of consciousness. Why do certain physical structures in human beings and other animals, interacting with physical environments, turn the lights of consciousness on? It's one thing to account for intelligent behaviour in purely physical terms – quite another to make sense of conscious experience. For Chalmers, it can't be done. There's more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in our physics.

In Reality+, he turns from mind to matter, asking how we know what's real. In 1641, René Descartes imagined himself deceived by an evil demon, the whole course of his experience a fraud. And then he tried to prove it wasn't so. Chalmers gives Descartes's predicament a technological spin. According to the "simulation hypothesis", we are the inhabitants of an immersive, interactive, computer-generated space – a virtual or simulated world, not unlike the one depicted in The Matrix (1999). Chalmers makes three radical claims about such worlds. First: it's impossible for us to know that we're not in one; we could be living in a simulation now. Second: this wouldn't stop the objects we encounter from being real. Even if our world is simulated, that simulation may contain real rocks, real trees and real people. Third: life in a simulation may be just as meaningful as life in a non-virtual world...(Kieran Setiya, continues)

How Do You Respond When an Anti-Vaxxer Dies of Covid?

Don't give in to schadenfreude. It warps the soul.

..."Come on!" some might say. "It's a natural emotion." That's true — and emotions are usually beyond our control. If someone coughs intentionally (or thoughtlessly) in your face on the subway, it's natural to get angry. At least for a few seconds.

But what you do with those emotions — give in to them, prolong them or intensify them — is a moral decision. After your fellow subway rider coughs in your face, you don't need to express your anger by punching him. Simply letting your emotions take you wherever they please is what a baby does, not an adult... nyt

Parties Split, in the Same House

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is ushering in a new era of judicial activism. But if it overturns the 1973 abortion-rights precedent Roe v. Wade, as it seems poised to do, the same majority is walking into a conceptual trap.

The case against Roe rests on nearly 50 years of conservative argument that the landmark decision was the culmination of a liberal generational failure to exercise judicial restraint, of creating constitutional rights unsupported by constitutional principles. Hence the contradiction: Today’s conservative majority appears ready to issue an epoch-making decision endorsing restraint as it enters a period of aggressive activism.

Five justices can do whatever they think is right. Yet the history of Supreme Court activism indicates that today’s conservative majority will have to labor mightily to explain away the contradiction and ward off the taint of being unprincipled and outcome-oriented... continues here

!This discussion is not a matter of your opinion of abortion! It is to focus on opposing political party's backing. Republicans and the right have appealed to pro-life individuals and argue they are protecting the right of the fetus/embryo. Democrats and the left have adopted the pro-choice approach and argue they are honoring the right of the woman to choose. How much of an influence does this controversial topic have on voters? Would Libertarians (who hold freedom above all) side in protecting the freedom of a woman to choose, or protecting an embryo/fetus right to life? why?

A Polish woman, Agnieszka T., dies after, according to family, doctors refuse to abort fetuses.

"The 37-year-old woman identified only as Agnieszka T. is the latest pregnant woman to die in Poland just one year after the country passed some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Women's human rights groups and her family blame the strict law, alleging doctors refused to carry out an abortion right away following the death of the fetus, a decision that they say cost Agnieszka her life, the Associated Press reported.

Agnieszka was pregnant with twins during her first trimester when she was admitted to the Blessed Virgin Mary Hospital in Częstochowa on December 21, 2021, with abdominal pain and vomiting, the AP said.

According to her family, she arrived at the hospital in "good physical and mental shape," according to The Guardian. After two days in the hospital, one of the heartbeats of the twins stopped.
...
According to her family, she arrived at the hospital in "good physical and mental shape," according to The Guardian. After two days in the hospital, one of the heartbeats of the twins stopped.
...

Following the terminated pregnancy, the woman remained in the hospital for weeks with deteriorating health. She ultimately died on January 25 from what her family suspects was septic shock. The Guardian reported that the cause of death was not released in a statement by the hospital on Wednesday."

Read more: Newsweek Article ; Information regarding 2020 abortion laws in Poland ; The Guardian article, on the topic

The autopsy has not been publicized regarding this woman's death, so discussion surrounding it is potentially speculation. There is a precedent however, as this is the third death (that I, a foreigner, knows of) that has resulted from the stringent abortion laws of Poland. These laws state abortion is only permitted in cases of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy or risk of fatality on the part of the mother, if pregnancy continues. The latter is left to the discretion of the doctors, and it's simple to point fingers at the doctors who make the wrong call in the situation. While malpractice or moral standing of the doctor may influence the wrong call (terminating a pregnancy to save the mother's life is inarguably the right call, as no government openly refuses this caveat), it may potentially also be caused by the fear of defending oneself against the strict abortion laws. These laws incentivize not aborting a fetus, which may result in waiting until it's too late to terminate for the mother's safety, as has been shown repeatedly in Poland. How long are we going to ignore a woman's autonomy, sometimes at risk of her mental or physical health? And how long are we going to selectively place greater value on the potentiality of life than on the actuality of it, and it's quality? 

Humans and the Cell: are we Sharing the Room with Microscopic Colleagues?

    As a human, your most basic biological component is the eukaryotic cell. This remarkable microscopic building block contains proteins and mechanisms for degradation of unnecessary components, for synthesis of the necessary ones, and for replication of itself.  Your body has so many different organ systems, made up of varying organs with extremely complex tissues.  This cell is the basis for this variety in your body; the cell is the reason you can breathe in and out, it's the reason you can read these words on your screen right now.  

    The coordination between tissues to achieve some of our most basic functions is insanely complicated, but it can be summarized in one simple sentence: cells sense one another and can receive and give signals to other cells to elicit some effect.  This effect could be transmitting light waves into neuronal signals to confer an image; it can be sound waves hitting your eardrum, causing fluids in your inner ear to vibrate, move hair cells, and trigger more neuronal signals to confer a sound.  Your heart is (hopefully) beating in perfect rhythm right now, all because the cells in your cardiac tissue are responding to the electrical signals they receive in perfect sync.  

    Many of us take for granted that our cells work in such harmony, but when discussing bioethics, I think we should be especially aware of this most basic concept.  When discussing veganism, animal research, even bacterial research, the ethical person must question the pain they may be inflicting.  So if a cell can sense its surroundings, can sense food and move towards it, can sense poisons and move away from it, doesn't this mean that cells can, in some sense, feel things? Should an ethical person take this into account, or is there some line to draw between feeling pain in the sense that humans do and feeling aversive stimuli in the sense that all biological systems do? 

    Where does the ethicist draw the line? Do organisms with nervous systems qualify as the only lifeforms that feel "pain" as humans do? This definition denies some multicellular animals without nervous systems the ability to feel pain.  In fact, this concept has denied a place in animal cruelty legislation for invertebrates (animals without a spinal cord). Is it that the afflicted organism must make some facial expression to express pain that is recognizable by man? This leaves out any organism without a mechanism for making recognizable facial expression (which includes some humans).

    The implication that cells can feel something like pain opens a whole new can of worms in several ethical arguments, but as bioethicists it's our job to examine these possibilities.  As Campbell talks about in the first chapter of Bioethics: The Basics, to make the best judgment in bioethics, it takes a combined knowledge of philosophical truths and scientific facts.  Knowing that cells sense and respond to their environment is an important part of the scientific facts puzzle.

    The cell is a truly remarkable biological unit. It is efficient and self-sustaining to some extent, and it continues to astound me in its abilities to sense and respond to its environment.  Knowing the extent of this sensing ability is imperative to several bioethical arguments (such as animal research and cruelty, veganism, lab grown meat, stem cell research, etc.).  In a broad sense, the only distinction between a human and a cell could be just the size of the room it's in.

    

Trucks roll into Ottawa for protest against Canada's vaccine mandates

'Trucks rolled into Canada’s capital Ottawa on Saturday to stage what police say will be a massive protest against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates in front of parliament on a frigid winter day. The so-called "Freedom Convoy" - coming from east and west - started out as a rally against a vaccine requirement for cross-border truckers here, but has turned into a demonstration against government overreach during the pandemic with a strong anti-vaccination streak. “It’s not just about the vaccines. It’s about stopping the public health mandates altogether,”' article continues. 

At the end of the article, it states the Candian Trucking Alliance "opposes the demonstration and has said this is “not how disagreement with government policies should be expressed.”

Do you agree with this statement? why or why not? 

NYTimes.com: Weekly Health Quiz: Foods, Sleep and Brain Health

Test your knowledge of this week's health news.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/27/well/live/27healthquiz-01272022.html?smid=em-share

 Who is who in The School of Athens painting by Raphael

Questions Feb 1

Clinical Ethics (Basics 4); Premonition 4

Basics

1. (T/F) Dignity, respect, and confidentiality are among the aspects of the clinical relationship which emphasize the importance of trust. 

2. What (according to most recognized oaths and conventions) must always be the deciding factor guiding professional decisions? 

3. The idea that the doctor always knows best is called what? 

4. Is a diagnosis of mental illness grounds for establishing a patient's lack of capacity to render competent consent to treatment? 

5. What general principle allows breach of confidentiality? 

6. What term expresses the central ethical concern about "designer babies"? What poet implicitly expressed it?

7. Why have organizations like the WHO opposed any form of organ trading?

8. Besides the Kantian objection, what other major ethical issue currently affects regenerative medicine?

9. What does palliative medicine help recover?

10. What would most of us consider an unwelcome consequence of not retaining the acts/omissions distinction with respect to our response to famine (for example)?

Premonition

1. What's the "real waste" in government?

2. What misdirected pandemic narrative did Bob Glass think Homeland Security got "wrapped up" in?

3. What hit Richard Hatchett light a lightning bolt or thunderclap?

4. What was the biggest difference between Expert and computer models of disease?

5. What in Rajeev's mind made Hatchett a "philosopher type"?

6. There's no better system for transmitting disease than what?

7. Who is least capable of original thought?

8. Why was the 1918 St. Louis death rate half of Philadelphia's?

9. What was the moment when the CDC accepted social distancing as a viable tool in a pandemic?

DQ

• How do you generally go about establishing trust in a new relationship? Do such general considerations apply equally to the clinical relationship? How does "professionalism" relate to trust?
• Considering the "demented professor" (81) and other instances of patients whose expressed "best interests" may conflict with a clinician's therapeutic impulses: how important is the patient's present happiness, in influencing your clinical evaluation?
• What's wrong, if in fact the doctor does possess more accurate information and more relevant experience, with treating the patient after the analogy of parent and child?
• What would Dr. House do about patients who make (in his opinion) foolish decisions regarding their care? Would you hire him to work in your hospital?
• Under what circumstances would you NOT violate confidentiality and inform a patient's partner that they were HIV positive?
• What concept is more relevant in evaluating the ethical status of abortion: viability, humanity, personhood, maternal rights, or... ?
• What do you think of Thomson's violinist analogy (91-2)?
• Can a baby really have five parents (as opposed to five co-progenitors)? How do you define parenthood?
• Should surrogacy, organ trafficking, and transplant tourism be regulated? How, and by whom? 
• Do you think our society has a healthy attitude towards mental illness? Is it possible to declare a politically and ideologically neutral standard of sanity?
• How would you counsel patients who insist they no longer value their "quality of life" and refuse potentially effective treatment and medication?  
• Can the medical profession ever fully embrace the concept of ars moriendi, the art of dying?
• Can you imagine ever facilitating a suicide, professionaly or personally?
• Is there anything wrong with displaying cadavers in a museum exhibit (as in "Bodies: The Exhibition")? What guidelines should be followed?

Golden Mean and Covid-19

        | Aristotle argues in Nicomachean Ethics that every ethical virtue is concerned with two conditions, one involving excess and the other deficiency. To Aristotle, finding a balance by “maintaining the Golden Mean” could seem appropriate, both at the micro (individual) and macro (societal) levels. A society should prioritize health, as well as employment since the lack of the second, might create problems in the first. The recent comment of the World Health Organization (2020) that in the post-Covid era, society will face a critical issue of psychosocial consequences clearly shows the imbalance of a choice between health and employment.

        Aristotle's concept of the “Golden Mean” seems relevant in today's hard decisions. There is a need to find a balance between protecting the health and respecting human rights. A quarantine is a legitimate state policy when the health systems are at emergency levels, but the state must also care for the well-being of individuals experiencing quarantine. This balancing of rights was foreseen in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2015), which speaks of limiting rights to respect the rights and freedoms of others while at the same time recognizing that each of us has “duties to the community.” Thus, co-responsibility further refers to a moral obligation to one another by being accountable for our own words and actions. |

Article continued at https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/scc.2020.0075